Loading...
December 2, 2004 P&Z Minutes Mendian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 14of55 Zaremba: All right. Okay. In that case -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm happy about the trash enclosure. Zaremba: I would be satisfied to leave the fire turnaround and the buffer the way the applicant has showed it and if we need to call that alternate compliance, do we need to say that? Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe so, no. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-015, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-049, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004, with the following changes: Beginning on page 11, under site specific conditions, paragraph three can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph four can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph six can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph eight can be deleted as complied with. And I would add on page 12 a paragraph 14 that says that we would prefer that the trash enclosure currently nearest to the proposed Banner Bank be relocated to a less conspicuous position and the applicant can work with staff and SSC to accomplish that before the City Council hearings. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-026 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 220 single-family residential building lots and 17 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Mendian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 150f55 Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and Noth Meridian Road. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-028 REVISED Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a single-family residential use with reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes and reduced chord length and increased block length, including clubhouse pool and playground in a proposed R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road. Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing for Ventana Subdivision. First AZ 04-019, request for annexation and zoning 64.48 acres, RUT to R-8 zone, and Public Hearing PP 04-026, request for preliminary plat approval of 220 single family residential lots, and CUP 04-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. We'd like to open all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As our staff report outlined, this application was remanded back to you by the City Council. You forwarded a recommendation for approval on August 19th of this year and, then, on September 28th the City Council did remand it back to you. The primary reasons they did so are listed on pages two and three. There was four reasons that they gave as to why they sent it back and I have kind of highlighted those there. The first one had to do with a lack of transition in lot sizes on the north. The second one is a redesign for -- of the common areas. The third one is overall density. And, then, the fourth one is vehicular access and drop-off points. I, then, did list a table there that compared the original plat with the revised plat on page three. Generally, staff feels that the revised plan does comply with these changes. I think it flows really well. There was a real nice change to the open space and the layout. Just as a reminder to you, there is a future middle school site, 40 acres here on the south side, and, then, Saguaro Canyon on the east and, then, two 20 acre county parcels to the north and Paramount Subdivision to the west. The property is designated medium density on the Comprehensive Plan. This is the revised plat and many of the elements of the plat do remain the same as far as the location of the community clubhouse. Some of the -- the open space lots, much of that remains the same. The big difference is that this open space area hear as you come in off of Meridian Road and this open space here in the southeast are both substantially opened up to the streets, giving a lot more visibility into the areas. Previously they were mostly surrounded by single-family homes. They have reduced the number of build-able lots from 233 to 220, so they have removed 13 lots. That changes the density from 3.6 dwelling units per acre to 3.4. The open space increases to 10.4 percent of the project. The planned development -- the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, the reasons for that are listed on page four of the staff report and there is four areas there that they are asking for reductions. Minimum lot size -- proposing a minimum lot size of 6,388 square feet per lot. Lot frontage proposed to reduce to 40 feet. Cord length reducing five feet to 35 and, then, a block length at 1,500. So, again, we have had this discussion about how many lots are affected by this and, I'm sorry, but I did not put that in the staff report and forgot to ask the applicant to Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 16 0155 do that. The minimum frontage is really very few -- few lots. The majority of the lots in the subdivision are between 7,000 and 9,000. Their largest lots are on the north boundary here, which got quite a bit of discussion at the City Council hearing. They have enlarged those and added this cul-de-sac. There is a multi-use pathway through this project as well, as was the last one, and it comes in through Saguaro Canyon and they are proposing to put it in a six foot wide sidewalk in front of the houses and, then, put it into a ten foot wide pathway the majority of the rest of the way out to Meridian Road and it would hook up with Paramount Subdivision and continue west. We think that, actually, this is an improved flow for the pedestrians as well on this new design. The block length -- there was only one block that is affected by that. They are proposing to exceed the 1,000 feet requirement and go greater than 1,500 feet on the south here next to the school. That's, I believe, the only block that is greater than the thousand feet in length. It is broken up with this area right here, which was another reason that the City Council remanded it and this -- as you can see, there is a drop-off area that is shown off of the main street, which is, I think, the first time that the city's really seen one of these. I think it's a great idea and will work well. There is a pathway that comes in -- that's right. Bridgetower Crossing had one, too, didn't it. There is a pathway that, then, leads down. One difference there, they did previously have two pathways connecting to the school site. This has been reduced to one. We did receive a written response from the applicant agreeing to staff's recommended conditions, for the most part. There is only one that I wanted to point out for the Commission and that is actually a fire department condition and it's on page 19, item number five. This is a standard condition that Joe Silva, the deputy chief, has placed on many projects of this size and others where they are concerned about having their main points of access into asite being separated by a reasonable distance and they have considered that distance to be half -- half the diagonal measurement of the site. In this case, if you take out the diagonal measurement of this property and you separate the entrances into the site, these two entrances are approximately 800 feet apart. They, by his standard, would need 1,100 -- about 1,100. The main reason for that, as was explained to. staff, is related mainly to construction traffic and the closure of arterial roads, either for accidents or construction and the difficulty of getting an engine with those closures and the further apart they are the easier it is for them to get in on an emergency response situation. So, in order for them to comply with this condition on page 19, what was recommended is that they put a deed restriction on one of the lots in this area of the plat, that deed restriction would basically require them to construct on temporary emergency access road across that at the point that they hit 50 lots or more, until they get a secondary permanent access and, then, that would go away. We have seen this in other locations. The main difference here is that they are, actually, proposing to construct two permanent access points in phase one onto Meridian Road, it's just that they don't meet the distance that the fire department is asking for. So, Deputy Chief Silva is asking for that just to be clarified. That would probably just be a new site specific condition under the preliminary, even though the way it's written I didn't include it in there right now. It would need to be added as a condition to place a deed restriction and maybe if the applicant -- if Mrs. McKay could address that, we could go from there. I think that's the main point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 170155 Zaremba: Question, Brad. That -- I'm just trying to clarify. That would be a temporary condition that actually would be lifted when there were the back stubs -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Or -- right. Yeah. You're, obviously, not going to get one to the south, because the school district does not want public streets. They have this stub street here and, then, they have two stub streets on the north. Zaremba: And at that point the fire department would be satisfied and -- Hawkins-Clark: They would. Zaremba: -- the restriction on this lot could go away? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Obviously, this applicant has no control over that and it could be that maybe Saguaro Canyon, which, you know, would be the one here, you know, may develop before they get to phase two. At this point nobody knows, but -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other question from the Commissioners? Anything you would like to add? Who is the -- for the applicant? Mrs. McKay, are you doing the presentation? McKay: I will be brief, unlike normal. As Brad indicated, we did move on with a recommendation for approval from the Commission. When we went to the Council, they had some concerns. Since the school district did not want any vehicular connection, the Borup: Oh, Becky, just -- McKay: Oh. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken, Suite B, Eagle. The Council had a concern, since we had two pedestrian access points connecting us to the middle school, that there would be difficulty in traffic backing up along in front of these houses along the local street, so they asked us to look at an option of coming up with say like a drop-off, since the school district doesn't want any vehicular connection, such as a stub street. One of the other concerns they had was this park here is more linear in fashion. They said that they felt that that was not inviting enough to the neighborhood, that it benefited only those lots which backed up against it, and the same for this kind of linear park right in this location. We also, as with the Commission, had substantial opposition from Mr. Priddy, who had the 20 acre parcel to the north. The Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 16 0155 Council asked us to take a look at trying to better transition our lot sizes from Mr, Priddy, since he indicated at the Council that he had no intentions of developing his property. However, now is marketing it for high density residential. So, what we did is we created a drop-off point here along the south boundary. We will have a ped path. Parents can come in, we have got a separation here from the right of way with an island, they will come in here, they will be able to park, get out of the traffic way, and pick the kids up. So, the two micro-paths that we originally had are now one . large common area. We took this common area here, did some readjustments, oriented it not only to benefit the rear of the lots, but exposure to the public right of way. We enlarged the clubhouse and pool area here, widened it out, created some more additional open space there to make it a little more inviting and, then, along this area where we will be piping the North Slough, we had lots that backed up to it on both sides, this now has an orientation to the right of way. The multi-use pathway will come in from Saguaro here, will come up, and, then, the majority of it does lie within the common areas. So, most of it will be a ten foot asphalt path. Anyplace where it is adjoining the right of way it will be will six feet. This particular area we kind of moved this block outward to orient this more to the right of way, so we could get a little bit better exposure of that open space. As far as the north portion was concerned, we stuck in a cul-de-sac, because that, obviously, allows us to make larger lots and so the lot sizes along here we had, if you recall in the original plan, we had some that were 6,500 square feet. These lots are now, I think, around 13,000 square feet on the average. So, we enlarged their size. The Council did not have any criticisms about the density, nor the design -- the overall design, they just wanted us to make some fine-tuning and to address some of the concerns that they had. So, we did get with the staff, we came up with some different ideas, and based on our input and the staff's input, we came up with this plan. It did -- we did drop 13 lots from the original plan and that was based on the fact where we increased our open space from eight percent to I think 10.4 percent. That was one of the comments that the Council had. With these planned developments, you know, they stated that they'd like to see more open space when we are deviating from the dimensional standards, they'd like to see, you know, the amenities and a boost in that open space a little closer to that ten percent. So, this is the product that we came up with. We feel that it is a good plan. I think staff is very happy with it. From a planning perspective I think there are certain aspects of this plan that are superior to the other one. It is a little more inviting on the open space, although some of our clients prefer the linear open space, you know, this is more a combined type open space with orientation towards the site as a whole. Do you have any questions? Borup: No questions from the Commission? Rohm: Just one. What is your percentage of open space? McKay: I think it is 10.4 percent. It was 8.1 or something along that line. If you look in the table it delineates that. Rohm: Got it. Thank you. Mendian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 190155 Zaremba: I have two questions. I always appreciate your well thought out responses to the staff report. However, what I was given this time is a response to the Sommersby Subdivision report, so I haven't seen your response to this. So, if you'd just confirm for me staff's statement that you're pretty much in agreement with the staff report. McKay: Oh. Yes. We did respond. I don't know how that got in there. Zaremba: Somehow I got a Sommersby one instead of this one. McKay: Uh-oh. Yeah. We submitted one on November 30th. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: Yes. We have gone through the staff report and I believe we are in agreement with all of staff's conditions. I think the only thing that Brad asked me to address is the fire department's new requirement. We have been accustomed with dealing with the issue of two access points once we hit that 50 lot threshold. We have -- we have been in agreement with that, because it -- from a safety perspective it does make sense. This new requirement of this half the diagonal dimension, I'm not sure where that's coming from. You know, typically, the fire department requirements are oriented in the International Fire Code and so I have to do some research. This one was kind of sprung on us just a few days ago. So, I guess our argument would probably be better at the Council on that issue. One problem I see with it, from a practical perspective, is, you know, their concern is the fact that these are only 800 feet apart, so they are saying if this was 300 feet further down, then, it would be acceptable. Well, I think the key issue is that you have got two points of interconnected ingress and egress. If Meridian Road is blocked due to construction, I don't think the fact that this is 200 feet or 300 feet further is going to make a lot of difference from a practical perspective. We can always deed restrict a lot and bring a 20 foot gravel access out, but, typically, you have got landscaping that's required along the perimeter, we will have a meandering sidewalk. I don't believe a sidewalk can handle 7,000 GVW driving up over the top of it. Typically, they can, especially like a meandering one that's along the berm. I mean Bruce may want to address that. So, I see some problems with trying to make that work. I'm more -- an easier thing to do would probably be to bring a pathway or a 20 foot gravel access south and, then, work with the school district to bring it along the southern boundary versus coming in across berms. We will also have -- without having a gap in the fence. You know, we, typically, like the fence off the arterial. It's also a safety issue for like little kids, toddlers, or whatever that gets away and here we are creating a gap in the fence, a gap in the berm, where they could get out to that arterial. So, I do see that that's going to be problematic and I reserve the right to discuss it when we move onto Council. I guess I'm not in total agreement with that. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Again, seeing none, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 20 0155 Zaremba: I would ask one more question either of staff or of Mrs. McKay. I'm sorry she got away already. Has there been any resolution on the 20 foot gravel drive reserved for a neighbor? That seemed to be a point of contention when we had the last hearing on this project. Mr. Priddy is it to the north and this applicant seemed to be having issues about the driveway that's actually a third property. Is there any resolution or any time frame for that to be resolved? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, no, I don't believe so. I mean the condition remains actually attached to Saguaro Canyon, which is to the east. I mean that's -- that's who owns that and that's who would utilize it. So, as far as the resolution -- the way that it was worded was if that -- that it will need to go away at some point in the future, but -- I guess what we have been told here at the staff table by Dave McKinnon, who had represented Saguaro Canyon, is that the -- there is some agreement that the owner of Saguaro Canyon would sell -- will sell to either Mr. Voigt, who is developing this project, or Mr. Priddy, who owns the parcel to the north and it sounds like at this point, obviously, Mr. Priddy would be the likely purchaser. Zaremba: So, it can be resolved? Hawkins-Clark: It sounds like it's moving that direction. It remains a gravel road that neither one of these parties own today, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: It's moving that way. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on AZ 04-019, PP 04-026, and CUP 04-028 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, actually. The applicant made a suggestion of using the very southern lot to reserve for the fire access, with the ability to re-challenge that at the City Council meeting. If we wanted to include that asa requirement, is that an annexation issue or a preliminary plat issue? Hawkins-Clark: I think it would be a plat issue. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-019, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 21 0155 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-026, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004, with the one change. Under site-specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, on page 15, I would add a paragraph 14 that says applicant will work with staff and the fire chief to temporarily provide an emergency access on the southern most lot facing Meridian Road and the applicant has the ability to challenge that at City Council. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-028, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-040 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-006) to add six additional building lots in location that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (Amended) by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-040. This is the one we discussed earlier. It's a request for a preliminary plat for Tuscany Lakes amended. Like to open this hearing at this time and open for a motion for -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, we did receive a fax today from Monte Morgner, who was not able to be here tonight, with an objection and I just wanted to submit that to the clerk for part of the record on this Tuscany Lakes.